Why Woman Grandmaster?

I just came across an article about Judit Polgar.  She beat Anand and Kasparov

I would assume others before have discussed this topic.  I think it should be more though.

I love it when OP's get their feelings hurt and try to claim irrelevancy has invaded the thread.   There are many other posts you could make a similar accusation towards.   The fact the one you responded to apparently strikes so close to home makes one wonder.

I guess sarcasm isn't so apparent.

It is beyond my comprehesion why this even matters to anyone. Women's titles are comparative only between women. Men aren't affected by these in the least, yet it's men who always bring up this topic.  Rather than wonder why such titles exist, I would be more curious to learn why men are so concerned about their existence.

I agree. Or why not bring up the question of why there are senior titles. Why there are national titles.  

Women events were created because it was believed it would be nice to have a female championship and lots of people agreed with the idea, and it was enacted. It's as though in this modern world we're not allowed to think this way anymore. Bringing up things like MRI scans... while perhaps a valid thoughtful point really isn't as smart as you may think it is. Sometimes the old ways were good ways, they're human instinct. At the end of the day we are all human and I would rather listen to the heart and soul rather than go by a stupid ideology. NOBODY SAID that every woman or man would fit this mould, it was just an idea that worked at the time, what is so wrong with that.    

The new politically correct "progressives" tend to think they're so enlightened and really they just don't know who to attack anymore. Rebels without a cause. It's like they're starving and feeding off scraps of anything that might be construed as unequal or injust.  

This is such a good point! They should change it.

Judit Polgar had a career high rating of 2735; no-one has ever been rated 200 points above that.

I'm surprised the feminists aren't all over this, but in this case females players have a distinct advantage in achieving titles at a lower rating than men.

However, to be fair, a female player over 2200 is decent enough and yes a female GM at 2500 is going to beat most expert men and hold their own against equivalent rated men and occasionally beat much higher players, as would a man at 2500 would.   There are exceptions of course, like Susan and Judit and it would be interesting to study how they were able to break through to be much stronger than most female players.

Perhaps it is a spatial awareness capacity, but this is based on personal experience of how women think.  Most women I have known have not had great spatial awareness, whether chess, or map reading/directions etc, but have a fantastic ability to remember specific details, like what someone wore, what precise items bought on particular dates.   But I'm sure there are numerous books written on the differences between male and female mental capacities.

Womnen's titles are not good for women because they perpetuate a hierarchy of woman not being as good as men.  It is not woman who created this system but the men.  Having separate women's events is a constant reminder to girls and ladies everywhere that they cannot compete with men.  It reinforces this heirarchy.    Again, please remember it is the men who created this subdivision. not the women.  Its really a derogatory thing to most thinking woman.  We don't need handouts.  We don't need to win our own events in order to enjoy chess.  Its all part of a patriarchical effort to keep reminding people that woman are not equal to men and cannot be equal to them.  And all these men that keep talking about 'how woman think' are seriously full of themselves and need to stfu about this.  Its not their issue.  Listening to men talk about this is like listening to white people explain racism to black people.
 

Yes and maybe you should read one of them to learn that there is no discernable difference between men and women and their 'mental capacities.'  What a bunch of gibberish and nonsense you wrote.  Very insulting and ignorant. 

and based on my imperical experience of knowing a number of women, including some female chess players, that is my experience.  If women did have the same capacity as men in chess for instance there would be a lot more master and grandmaster equivalents. 

I look forward to day that women weren't given some advantage in chess by obtaining titles at a lower rating level (as you agree with), but my experience is my experience.  To be fair though I haven't meet many very intelligent women, not beyond a standard degree level.   perhaps you're different :>)

Because WGM is better xO

"If women did have the same capacity as men in chess for instance there would be a lot more master and grandmaster equivalents."

Pure ignorance.  Much fewer women play chess.   Speak in percentages, about which you likely know nothing.  

Might as well claim if English did have the same capacity as Danish in chess there would be an English world champion.

There are countless women on chess.com alone that would grind you into quivering dust over the chess board so what inferences do you draw from their superiority over you?

A woman has a collection of talents that as a whole make her a far superior creature for survival than the average men.   Their ability to function at the high level they do under the most severe conditions of suffering far surpasses what most men are capable of.   Were it not for these attributes the human race would never have survived through low points of its development on the planet.   

You making chess the pivot point of all these sweeping generalities about women is one example of the crippling impact of male ego when applied to anything but being the brute who did the fighting, the hunting, and...well that's just about it.   When it came to the gathering the women suffered through much of that part of it too.   

Why do you consider it's so important that men created it? What difference does that make? Are you implying that males are somehow motivated to be against women and this is why they created it? Surely it doesn't matter who created it, what matters is whether it's a good system or not. The only person being sexist here is you. 

Women are already eligible for CM, FM, IM, GM and world champion titles. What purpose do special titles serve? To promote chess? Ok but then--

Why do woman only titles mimic the name of universal titles: WCM, WFM, WIM, WGM, while at the same time being 200 points lower than their counterparts?

No matter the benefits, the idea that women are inherently inferior is an unavoidable implication. Surely there are better methods.

Hmm, but they share the same name with the universal titles while being 200 points lower. It suggests itself to compare them to universal titles.
 

Some may entertain idea of gender superiority. There are extremists of course, but most are in between. Bringing up a topic like this lets people attach those feelings and ideas to something concrete and explore them. They may even purposefully be trollish: "women are weak and whiny" in hopes of receiving a better sounding broad in response.

Although, that is giving his forum a little too much credit. Probably just a standard troll.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you about the sexist posts on this forum [despite being a man myself].  But I don't agree with you here.

Books on this topic will tell you all manner of contradictory things.  I think there are considerable innate differences between the male and female brains, statisticly I mean.  And the female is [I think] typically inferior in spatial intelligence, which is likely related to more men being good at chess.  Women exceed men in language skills and reading people.

Speaking as a man, I agree and couldn't care less about WGM and WIM titles.  And i would be delighted to get my playing strength up to something like Polgar's or Zhou Yifan's.

Individual examples like J.Polgar are nearly meaningless when speaking on genders in general.

But whatever makes people feel nice about the topic I suppose...

Those of you who are caught up in the idea of male superiority need to get caught up...

http://www.amazon.com/The-Natural-Superiority-Women-Edition/dp/076198982X

"But the central question of the book is: which sex is superior, from an anthropological perspective? Well that, of course, depends on what you mean by 'superior'. Montagu offers this definition: "Superiority in any trait, whether biological or social, is measured by the extent to which that trait confers survival benefits upon the person and the group." With this benchmark in place, he then goes about showing how women excel in a wide variety of domains: intelligence, physical and emotional health, sensory perception, sociability, and longevity, to name only a few.
Montagu gives ground on only one topic: creativity. He admits that throughout history, the vast majority of artists, musicians, writers, inventors and scientists have been men. However, he never assumes for a minute that this is due to an inherent genetic superiority. Instead, he shows that it is a consequence of men's traditional subjugation of women. Men have always kept women "in their place": cooking, cleaning, taking care of the household and the children..."

I think the male chess community needs to be a lot more welcoming to women players, especially online. I know some guys are great and have no issues at all but too many rude and sexist idiots get away unchallenged when they peddle their bull****.